NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Form 1 SECOND DIVISION Award No. 12526
Docket No. 12489
93-2-92-2-4
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Kay McMurray when award was rendered.
(International Association of
(Machinists and Aerospace Workers
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Consolidated Rail Corporation
(Conrail)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"1. That the Consolidated Rail Corporation, hereafter
referred to as the Carrier, violated the
controlling Agreement, Rule #6. but not limited
thereto, when they unjustly dismissed Machinist M.
L. Moss, Enola, Pa., from the service of the
Carrier.
2. That accordingly, Carrier be ordered to return
Machinist M. L. Moss, hereafter referred to as the
Claimant, to active service, with all rights
unimpaired and pay him for all lost time wages for
the period from June 22, 1988, until he is returned
to service."
FINDINGS:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved
in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the
meaning of
the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over
the dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing
thereon.
Claimant was notified to appear for a hearing in connection
with the following charge:
Form 1 Award No. 12526
Page 2 Docket No. 12489
93-2-92-2-4
"Failure to report for duty on Saturday, which
in light of your previous attendance record as
indicated on the attached, constitutes
excessive absenteeism."
The hearing was conducted in an appropriate manner on the
scheduled date. Claimant was notified that he was dismissed from
service with the Carrier in all capacities. The claim was
progressed through she normal contractual appeal processes on the
property and is now before this Board for review.
The record reveals that the Organization and Claimant pleaded
guilty to the charges, but asked for leniency on the Carrier's part
based on their view that the absences were beyond the control of
Claimant. The absenteeism record of Claimant over several years
had been far from exemplary. He had received two letters of
warning and discipline had been assessed on ten different
occasions. The most recent were sixty day suspensions in 1985 and
1988.
In view of the foregoing and the entire record we find that
Claimant was afforded due process as required by the Contract and
that the Carrier's action was not arbitrary nor capricious.
A long list of decisions by this Board have held that under
such conditions the power of leniency resides with the Carrier and
not this Board.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
ancy J er - Secretary to the Board
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of April 1993.